LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010, seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010, seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.

Inbreeding is unhealthy. Is that predicted by ID?

Has the price of teenage brides in cows collapsed? Approximately a quarter of the editorial staff having to do their own dirty work is not conducive to prothelizing a religious belief system through Darwinian profilaxis. They need to reproduce with more 'glory be' fitness, moar 'git down now and pray' . That in itself is anathema to their stated aims. Reproduction without reality based education or more corectly ideologically enforced stupidly by bibliophilic boards of education free from constitutional constraints aka theocracy for everyone who won't take the Rev Jim Jones Cool @id.FuckersI I hope they die.

LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010, seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.

That explains why the editors don't have time to review the massive backlog of submissions (why else would there be so few published articles?). Too busy doing research and publishing, just like you see with the editors of fake journals such as Journal of the American Chemical Society.

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

Dembski is off all radar. He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.

Most of the static websites are moribund. UD has banned virtually all dissenters. The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds. The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate. The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites. Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion. Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

As a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design creationism is most certainly dead. In fact, it was stillborn. After Dover, it was clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to get around constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion in the US.

As a political and cultural movement, however, intelligent design creationism unfortunately lives on, and will do so in every school district that includes a fundamentalist church. It doesn't matter to creationists of any variety whether or not ID is science or if science supports their sectarian views, they will continue to make those irrational, repeatedly disproven claims in an attempt to force their religion into public schools.

Creationists, including the intelligent design variety, lie. They are not interested in truth because they already have TRUTH. They want the power to impose that on everyone else.

Dembski is off all radar. He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.

Most of the static websites are moribund. UD has banned virtually all dissenters. The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds. The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate. The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites. Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion. Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

As a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design creationism is most certainly dead. In fact, it was stillborn. After Dover, it was clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to get around constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion in the US.

As a political and cultural movement, however, intelligent design creationism unfortunately lives on, and will do so in every school district that includes a fundamentalist church. It doesn't matter to creationists of any variety whether or not ID is science or if science supports their sectarian views, they will continue to make those irrational, repeatedly disproven claims in an attempt to force their religion into public schools.

Creationists, including the intelligent design variety, lie. They are not interested in truth because they already have TRUTH. They want the power to impose that on everyone else.

ID will be around for a while as a business model. There still seem to be a lot of people who want sciency jargon with their apologetics and conspiracy theories.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

"Evolution is like poker hands. Some get dealt winners and some get dealt losers. Now random mutations happen to the symbols on the cards so they are ALL losers. Therefore evolution is impossible!!"

One pro-science poster Lincoln Phipps (which one of you is he?) points out what a terrible analogy it is.

Fat JoeTard pipes in with "there is no theory of evolution!"

Nightlight offers that ToE is wrong because it can't calculate probabilities.

Jeff M claims natural selection is a tautology so ToE is false.

Batshit77 copypastas his usual giant steaming pile of drivel.

Barry Arrogant congratulates niwrad for such an excellent and insightful OP.

There you have everything you need to know about the ID movement in one neat package.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Holy fuck. We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

Quote

Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."

If that wasn't bad enough...

Quote

Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

There you have it folks. Reproduction isn't needed for evolution. If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.

Words fail me.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Holy fuck. We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

Quote

Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."

If that wasn't bad enough...

Quote

Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

Holy fuck. We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

Quote

Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."

If that wasn't bad enough...

Quote

Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

Holy fuck. We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

Quote

Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."

If that wasn't bad enough...

Quote

Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

At UD, News posted an article entitled "Fossils of Australasian tree unexpectedly found in South America". Note that the word "unexpected" does not occur in the ScienceDaily report; it is News' contribution.

Unexpected to whom? Anyone familiar with the biogeography of southern gymnosperms, if asked where to search for fossil specimens of Agathis outside of its extant range, would immediately say, "South America!". Tectonic movement + common descent > expected result.

THE BIRTHERS.... I call them "conversation enders." These are comments that lead you to know, the moment you hear them, that the writer/speaker is either clueless or intellectually dishonest, and there's really no reason to engage the person in a serious dialog....I suspect we all have them. When I hear, "Tax cuts are fiscally responsible because they pay for themselves," it's a conversation ender. When I hear, "Evolution is just a theory," it's a conversation ender. When someone says, "Global warming can't be real because it's cold outside," it's a conversation ender.

That was steve benen. From your link, I decided I have a new conversation ender. Whenever I hear anything along the lines of "Atheism taken to its logical conclusion..." Shut it down.

An O'Leary own goal! She's checking out a new grammar checker. She types in this bit of deathless prose:

Quote

Hawking is comfortable with non-realism: “I’m a positivist. … I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.” The end of reality is captured in a telling vignette: The lead character in the film Happy Go Lucky, browsing in a bookshop, pulls Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality from a shelf, glances at the title and puts it straight back, saying, “Oh, we don’t want to go there!”

A question arises: If, in the multiverse (especially the many worlds version) everything possible is true, why do cosmologists trash traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs? Because there is a critical catch: Anything may be true, including contradictory states, except serious dissent from the Copernican principle–the principle that Earth and our universe are nothing special.

An O'Leary own goal! She's checking out a new grammar checker. She types in this bit of deathless prose:

Quote

Hawking is comfortable with non-realism: “I’m a positivist. … I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.” The end of reality is captured in a telling vignette: The lead character in the film Happy Go Lucky, browsing in a bookshop, pulls Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality from a shelf, glances at the title and puts it straight back, saying, “Oh, we don’t want to go there!”

A question arises: If, in the multiverse (especially the many worlds version) everything possible is true, why do cosmologists trash traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs? Because there is a critical catch: Anything may be true, including contradictory states, except serious dissent from the Copernican principle–the principle that Earth and our universe are nothing special.

The score? "58 of 100(weak, needs revision)"

Whoda guessed?

Never would have guessed as high as 58!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.

Quote

Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.

In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."

And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.

Quote

Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.

In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."

Just read the excerpts. Maybe I'm missing something but didn't Dr.Dr.Dr. just hold the door wide open for theistic evolution?

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

In the context of biology, intelligent design looks for patterns in biological systems that confirm real teleology.

Whereas science asks if the hypothetical can be falsified.

IDiocy would never ask if it could be wrong. Because it is, or anyway, wild-type organisms lack the signs of the leaps beyond what mere adaptation can produce. Meaning that the honest version of ID has been falsified, and IDiocy won't accept that.